MediaWatch: September 7, 1998

National political reporters perform a curious ritual
in election years. They break down the Republican Party into
constituent groups and gravely report on internecine battling
between, for example, "moderates" and the "religious right"
which threaten to scare off "independent and moderate" voters.
In January, MediaWatch noted that in 1995 and
1996, three national newspapers usually applied a conservative label to
the Family Research Council (in 63 percent of stories),
Concerned Women for America (71 percent), and Eagle Forum (75
percent).

But these reporters rarely create a story out of discord
between moderate and liberal factions of the Democratic Party.
In January, MediaWatch found abortion advocacy
groups were labeled as liberal in only 2.8 percent of stories in three
national newspapers in 1995 and 1996. So what about liberal gay
groups? In mid-September, Vice President Gore will engage in
his latest courting of the gay left by appearing at the annual
dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a year after President
Clinton made the "historic" decision to address that event.

To document the labeling patterns of national reporters on gay-left activist groups, MediaWatch
analysts used the Nexis news data retrieval system to analyze every
news story on five gay groups from January 1, 1995 through June
30, 1998 in The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post. In 411 stories, the five groups were labeled only five times, or in 1.2 percent of stories.

The Human Rights Campaign was tagged only three times
in 226 stories (1.3 percent). Only one came within a news
story. In a January 28, 1998 Washington Post-Style
section feature on Clinton’s post-Lewinsky State of the Union address,
Frank Ahrens noted a party "thrown by several groups, many of
them lefty" — including the HRC. "And, as the President
appeared on the big screen, a deafening cheer went up." The
other two came indirectly in headlines. A January 27, 1996
report on Rep. Ron Wyden’s successful Senate campaign was
headlined "Candidate’s Backers Hope to Make Oregon a Liberal
Proving Ground." The March 26, 1996 USA Today featured the headline "For liberals, Clinton only choice: President has grudging but solid support."

But two stories downplayed the HRC’s partisan leanings. On June 18, 1995, USA Today described HRC as "the nation’s largest non-partisan gay group." A June 2, 1996 Post
feature on gay GOP Congressman Steve Gunderson described HRC as a
"bipartisan gay political organization." The HRC often went
label-free even as Democrats flocked to their side:

The Washington Post reported on July 5, 1998 that
one HRC activist said of Dick Gephardt: "I have taken note
that in the last six to 12 months he has been much more clear
and forthright on gay and lesbian issues." Gephardt was keynote
speaker at a Human Rights Campaign dinner in Denver.

The Post reported that HRC estimated "openly gay
donors gave $3.2 million to Democrats [in 1995 and 1996].
Two-thirds of self-identified gay voters backed Clinton in
1996, providing seven percent of his total votes, according to an
independent exit poll." The HRC itself says it gave $1.1 million in
the 1995-96 cycle and dispatched staff to work on key races.

In 1997, Hillary Clinton headlined a Barbara Boxer
fundraiser at the home of HRC Executive Director Elizabeth
Birch.

Ted Kennedy spoke at their 1996 "United in Victory"
convention rally in Chicago. Clinton sent a videotaped
message to the group claiming his administration "has taken
more steps than any other to bring the gay and lesbian community to
the table."

The weekend before the 1996 GOP convention, HRC aired TV
ads asking "Why are Bob Dole and Congress wasting our time
with new laws attacking gay relationships?" HRC drew a label
in none of these reports.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force drew only two labels in 72 stories (2.8 percent), both of them indirectly in headlines. On May 27, 1996, the New York Times
headline on page 10 was "Many Disllusioned Liberals See No Alternative
to President." In the article, former NGLTF head Urvashi Vaid
said she could not vote for Clinton. On October 9, 1996, the Washington Post headline read "Despite Some Discontent, Clinton Manages to Consolidate Core Liberal Base." On July 6, 1997, the Post
identified conservative opposition, but not liberal advocacy
in the headline "More Companies Reaching Out With Gay-Friendly
Policies; Domestic Partner Benefits Gain Momentum in Tight
Labor Market, Despite Risk of Offending Conservative
Customers."

Post reporter Megan Rosenfeld explained NGLTF’s view
on May 22, 1996: "Unofficially, the task force sees itself as a
funkier alternative to the officially non-partisan,
dollar-oriented HRC." Vice President Gore spoke to their annual awards
ceremony on September 15, 1997, and hosted an event for gay
activists at the vice presidential mansion where Tipper Gore
introduced him as her "partner." In 1995, NGLTF Policy
Institute head John D’Emilio told The New York Times about
conservative "pro-family" rhetoric: "Overtly, it’s a claim to
defending tradition. What it in fact turns out to be is a
deeply anti-feminist and homophobic message with a strong tinge
of racism."

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation was
awarded zero ideological labels in 81 stories. GLAAD is more
media-oriented than the HRC or the NGLTF, wielding a lot of
power in Hollywood to insure positive portrayals of gay characters. USA Today
noted on April 20, 1998 that CNN’s Larry King spoke at the
annual GLAAD Media Awards banquet: "It’s all about applauding the media,
TV, and movies for their efforts in presenting gays in a
favorable light."

GLAAD was portrayed as the opposite of conservatives without getting labeled in a June 11, 1998 New York Times
story on Internet filtering services. Reporter Pamela Mendels
referred to an appeals panel that included "representatives of groups as
diverse as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and
the conservative group Morality in Media."

The same phenomenon occurred in the September 16, 1995 Washington Post,
when reporter Jay Mathews covered Coors offering domestic
partner benefits: "The Christian right and the gay protesters
appear somewhat disoriented at finding themselves assailing the
same enemy....The move stunned conservative Christian groups
that had been accustomed to Coors support for anti-gay rights
efforts."

Founded in 1991 to support gay candidates, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
drew no labels in 18 stories. Even the waning militant protest
group ACT-UP (searched under its full name, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) had no liberal tag in 14 stories. The New York Times noted their decline with the headline "A Decade-Old Activism of Unmitigated Gall Is Fading."

Whether most voters (or most reporters) agree or disagree
with the policy agenda of liberal gay groups, if reporters
think it fair to describe the religious right as "extreme" or
threatening to "moderate" voters, shouldn’t they apply the same standard
to the gay left? That’s especially true when the gay left
regularly describes their opponents as extreme. "All political
stripes reject the extremist anti-gay agenda," HRC’s Elizabeth
Birch has claimed. Reporters’ use of labels helps to place the
far left squarely in the mainstream, while conservatives are
placed on the fringe.

NewsBites

Silent Splits The highest ranking Democrat in the House
refused to rule out impeachment of Clinton and a respected
Democratic party elder suggested the President resign, but the
networks stayed almost silent.

The August 23 Washington Post carried an op-ed by retired
Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) stating that Clinton must disclose all
of his illegal behavior, which Nunn concluded "will require
personal sacrifice and may even require his resignation, but it
would fulfill the President’s most important oath — to preserve
and protect our nation." Network coverage? On Sunday’s Meet the Press
moderator Tim Russert asked James Carville to react to Nunn, but no
evening newscast or morning news show uttered a word.

The August 26 Washington Post reported Minority Leader Dick
Gephardt said: "Impeaching the President — and effectively
overriding the election of 1996 — should not be undertaken
lightly...that doesn’t mean it can’t be done or shouldn’t be
done; you just better be sure you do it the right way." Coverage of this
major break away from the Clinton line by an influential and
leading Democrat? One 15-second item on ABC’s Good Morning America.

That morning on Today, NBC’s Matt Lauer failed to
raise the issue during an interview with Lanny Davis and Stuart
Taylor, but he did note the Post’s August 24 front-page story on
the Speaker of the House: "Stuart, Newt Gingrich has said he wants to
see more information on this, he wants to see everything. And
as you mentioned before, he’s looking, he says impeachment
inquiries shouldn’t go forward unless they can find some sort
of pattern of felonies, not a single human error. Does Ken
Starr owe it to Newt Gingrich to show him what he’s come up
with over these four and a half years?"

Lost in Space Something was missing in the recent John Glenn encomiums offered up by Time and Today. The August 17 Time
cover said of Glenn’s October space mission: "A gimmick? No, a
timely reminder that we can still have heroes." But Glenn,
depicted by Time’s Jeffrey Kluger as the quintessential
"elder statesman," played an important role last summer in
stonewalling and toeing the White House line during the Senate
fundraising hearings. Time featured a brief interview
titled "The Soul of a Senator," in which Kluger and Dick Thompson tossed
softballs at Glenn: "Do partisan attacks cross the line into
personal attacks these days?" Glenn was allowed to wax
philosophical on the dangers of partisanship and the need to
work together without any mention of last summer’s hearings.

Back then, Time only noted Glenn’s partisan antics in
three captions, two under photos and one under a cartoon
calling Glenn and Sen. Fred Thompson "old vaudevillians
upstaging each other."

On the August 25 Today, reporter Mike Boettcher spoke
almost entirely of Glenn’s career as an astronaut in the ‘60s,
not as an obstructionist in the ‘90s: "He was an American hero
then, and will be again when he makes his second trip into space."
After the glowing piece, Jodi Applegate spoke of Glenn’s "terrific
opportunity" and Matt Lauer wondered aloud: "How cool is he?"
Even the avuncular Al Roker couldn’t resist: "He’s the best."

Tortured MortU.S. News & World Report
Editor-in-Chief Mortimer Zuckerman lashed out at Bill Clinton
in the August 31 issue: "How, we must ask, could someone be so
reckless as to stake his public reputation and effectiveness as
a national leader on the discretion of a young woman who was
looking for a Washington adventure, a woman who would hold on to
a dress as a souvenir of a sexual relationship? What appalling
judgment to get involved with such a woman in the first place —
and then expect her to keep quiet about it."

But the press never made his recklessness an issue. Take for
example, the same Zuckerman in the February 10, 1992 U.S. News,
ripping into Gennifer Flowers and an alleged Clinton-hating
press: "The prospect of bringing down one of the best
candidates in the Democratic field was far too exciting for second
thoughts and clouded otherwise sound minds.... Legitimate press
standards do not include rummaging in the garbage of White House
contenders."

Lobbing the
Ultimate Conversation Stopper

Three days after admitting a sexual affair with
Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton authorized cruise-missile attacks
on suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. Was
this attack intended to divert attention from Monicagate?

All the networks noted the similarities to the satirical film Wag the Dog,
in which the White House creates a fictional war with Albania
to distract from a sex scandal. If the timing had been a
cynical damage control strategy, it surely worked in the short
run: From Thursday to Sunday, the evening shows on ABC, CBS,
NBC, and CNN carried 78 stories on the attack to just six Lewinsky
pieces (one report mixed the stories together). In the four mornings
after the attack, from Friday through Monday, the Big Three
aired 61 full segments on the attack to just seven on Lewinsky
(another 13 segments mixed both).

Media and Republican figures initially questioned the attack’s timing, but the backlash came quickly. In Time’s
daily Internet update, Frank Pellegrini reported: "Although
Clinton-haters Newt Gingrich and Dan Burton have avowed their support of
the strike, Republicans Arlen Specter and Dan Coats did not
shy from the low road." U.S. News & World Report
writer Stephen Budiansky flayed the press: "The only comforting
bit of normality in the entire week was provided by the
reliable inanity of the Washington press corps. The reporter
who demanded to know if Defense Secretary William Cohen had
seen the movie Wag the Dog reassured us that in one corner of the globe, the world was all right."

On Nightline, Ted Koppel noted an ABC poll which found 30 percent believed in a Wag the Dog
strategy: "Those are the times we live in... I have to assume that
there is a sense of embarrassment among all of us. Let me just
speak for myself. I have sense of embarrassment that we are
even raising questions like this at a time like this." Koppel
ended: "This, the President tells us, was one of those few
exceptions, one of America’s rare opportunities to fight back.
To doubt his word on this occasion may cross our minds but is,
in the final analysis, unthinkable."

But Koppel did not find it "unthinkable" in 1991 to charge
that the 1980 Reagan campaign delayed the release of American
hostages in Iran. Nor was it "unthinkable" days before the 1992
election to wonder if the Bush administration secretly armed the Iraqis
before the Gulf War: "This story is not a trivial issue." In
both cases, Koppel devoted major resources to proving those
false, insulting theories were true.

Hillary Reagan Clinton?

A&E "Investigative" Tribute

With a name like Investigative Reports, one might assume the
Arts & Entertainment Channel’s report on Hillary Clinton
would investigate Hillary scandals. Instead, host Bill Kurtis
(once with CBS) treated viewers to "a search for the core of her
values."

"Her story plays like a Greek drama: the quest for power,
the intoxication of success, the labyrinth of personal and
political intrigue," he began. "It’s about triumph and tragedy, it’s
a love story set against a backdrop of war [clip of Ken Starr],
fraught with the dangers of what the Greeks called hubris. It
is a play not finished, yet its storyline captivates the
world....In this edition of Investigative Reports, we focus on a
main player in this drama and aim for a glimpse into the inner
workings of perhaps the most influential woman of the last
half-century."

Kurtis’s "investigation" took him to Hillary’s "village," as
he referred to her hometown of Park Ridge, Illinois, and
followed her as she celebrated her 50th birthday there in
October 1997. In tracing her growing up into politics, Kurtis championed
her commencement speech at Wellesley: "She gained national
attention for supporting the right to student protest, in the
process taking to task then-Massachusetts Senator Edward
Brooke. As she met her husband-to-be and moved into public
life, her politics continued to move unquestioningly to the
center. Yet her moral compass, even 30 years later, has never
really left Park Ridge."

Despite touching on liberal items like the ill-fated
1300-page health plan, Kurtis continued to praise the First
Lady as somewhat conservative. "A blend of her conservative past
and political present, Hillary Rodham Clinton defies the pigeonhole,
and it would appear, that is just the way she likes it."

Citing her book It Takes a Village, Kurtis claimed Mrs.
Clinton holds old-fashioned views: "That traditional view
includes the subject of divorce. For the First Lady, simply put,
divorce means failure...It's a distinct position, evocative of another
time and place."

Kurtis ended the "investigation" with apprehension over
whether in the end Hillary’s legacy will triumph: "A sense of
nobility. As her days in the White House dwindle to a precious
few, it provides, perhaps, a last refuge for this First Lady, her work
in child care, education and women’s rights affording a safe
harbor from the taint of scandal, and a glimmer of hope for her
own political future. For now, the Clinton administration is a
drama without a final act, but the elements are there for a
suspenseful conclusion: the spreading stain of scandal, the
politics of power, the weight of history. For Hillary Rodham
Clinton, there is something else at stake: Is there enough time
to put the legacy she wants together before the final act is
written?"

Sober and
Sensible Polls?

Since the beginning of Monicagate, the networks have used
their pollsters to reinforce how popular Bill Clinton is and
how most people don’t care about perjury concerning his
"private life." But on August 12, five days before Clinton’s grand jury
date, ABC News polling analyst Gary Langer rejoiced in the
results on ABCNews.com:

"As the Monica Lewinsky affair spins toward its rendezvous
with destiny, it’s worth celebrating what has been perhaps the
biggest surprise of the scandal: the sober and sensible way
average Americans have responded to the whole brouhaha....Pundits hate
this kind of thing; Those who declared him dead have had to
reconfigure their best lines to accommodate — drat! — actual
public opinion."

Langer explained: "It turns out that most Americans have
responded to the Lewinsky affair with more of a head scratch
than a knee jerk. Their message on this score has been steady:
Clinton’s personal behavior, however unsavory it’s alleged to be, is
indeed personal."

As the President’s admission drew nearer, Langer endorsed
the White House spin that a strong economy negates sex, lies,
and perjury: "Lewinsky’s a far juicier story, but when it comes to
evaluating presidential performance, average Americans check their
wallets. The lowest unemployment in a generation, trivial
inflation, growing personal income: What’s a stained dress in
the face of these? So far, not much."

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.